OBJECTIVES: Human subjects and Old World primates have high levels of antibody to galactose-α-1,3 galactose β-1,4-N-acetylglucosamine (α-Gal). Commercially available bioprosthetic heart valves of porcine and bovine origin retain the Gal antigen despite current processing techniques. Gal-deficient pigs eliminate this xenoantigen. This study tests whether binding of human anti-Gal antibody effects calcification of wild-type and Gal-deficient glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine pericardium by using a standard subcutaneous implant model. METHODS: Expression of α-Gal was characterized by lectin Griffonia simplicifolia-IB4 staining. Glutaraldehyde-fixed pericardial disks from Gal-positive and Gal-deficient pigs were implanted into 12-day-old Wistar rats and 1.5-kg rabbits with and without prelabeling with affinity-purified human anti-Gal antibody. Calcification of the implants was determined after 3 weeks by using inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy. RESULTS: The α-Gal antigen was detected in wild-type but not Gal-deficient porcine pericardium. Wild-type disks prelabeled with human anti-Gal antibody exhibited significantly greater calcification compared with that seen in antibody-free wild-type samples (mean ± standard error of the mean: 111 ± 8.4 and 74 ± 9.6 mg/g, respectively; P = .01). In the presence of anti-Gal antibody, a significantly greater level of calcification was detected in wild-type compared with GTKO porcine pericardium (111 ± 8.4 and 55 ± 11.8 mg/g, respectively; P = .005). Calcification of Gal-deficient pericardium was not affected by the presence of anti-Gal antibody (51 ± 9.1 and 55 ± 11.8 mg/g). CONCLUSIONS: In this model anti-Gal antibody accelerates calcification of wild-type but not Gal-deficient glutaraldehyde-fixed pericardium. This study suggests that preformed anti-Gal antibody present in all patients might contribute to calcification of currently used bioprosthetic heart valves. Gal-deficient pigs might become the preferred source for new, potentially calcium-resistant bioprosthetic heart valves.
OBJECTIVES:Human subjects and Old World primates have high levels of antibody to galactose-α-1,3 galactose β-1,4-N-acetylglucosamine (α-Gal). Commercially available bioprosthetic heart valves of porcine and bovine origin retain the Gal antigen despite current processing techniques. Gal-deficient pigs eliminate this xenoantigen. This study tests whether binding of human anti-Gal antibody effects calcification of wild-type and Gal-deficient glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine pericardium by using a standard subcutaneous implant model. METHODS: Expression of α-Gal was characterized by lectin Griffonia simplicifolia-IB4 staining. Glutaraldehyde-fixed pericardial disks from Gal-positive and Gal-deficient pigs were implanted into 12-day-old Wistar rats and 1.5-kg rabbits with and without prelabeling with affinity-purified human anti-Gal antibody. Calcification of the implants was determined after 3 weeks by using inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy. RESULTS: The α-Gal antigen was detected in wild-type but not Gal-deficient porcine pericardium. Wild-type disks prelabeled with human anti-Gal antibody exhibited significantly greater calcification compared with that seen in antibody-free wild-type samples (mean ± standard error of the mean: 111 ± 8.4 and 74 ± 9.6 mg/g, respectively; P = .01). In the presence of anti-Gal antibody, a significantly greater level of calcification was detected in wild-type compared with GTKO porcine pericardium (111 ± 8.4 and 55 ± 11.8 mg/g, respectively; P = .005). Calcification of Gal-deficient pericardium was not affected by the presence of anti-Gal antibody (51 ± 9.1 and 55 ± 11.8 mg/g). CONCLUSIONS: In this model anti-Gal antibody accelerates calcification of wild-type but not Gal-deficient glutaraldehyde-fixed pericardium. This study suggests that preformed anti-Gal antibody present in all patients might contribute to calcification of currently used bioprosthetic heart valves. Gal-deficient pigs might become the preferred source for new, potentially calcium-resistant bioprosthetic heart valves.
Authors: L Burdorf; T Stoddard; T Zhang; E Rybak; A Riner; C Avon; A Laaris; X Cheng; E Sievert; G Braileanu; A Newton; C J Phelps; D Ayares; A M Azimzadeh; R N Pierson Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Madeline Cramer; Jordan Chang; Hongshuai Li; Aurelie Serrero; Mohammed El-Kurdi; Martijn Cox; Frederick J Schoen; Stephen F Badylak Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.854
Authors: Guerard W Byrne; Zeji Du; Paul Stalboerger; Heide Kogelberg; Christopher G A McGregor Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 3.907